Kaliba Sahil and ors. Vs. Balgia Nachial - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation

legalcrystal.com/807487

Court

Chennai

Decided On

Feb-15-1911

Judge

Munro and ;Sankaran Nair, JJ.

Reported in

9Ind.Cas.886

Appellant

Kaliba Sahil and ors.

Respondent

Balgia Nachial

Excerpt:madras civil courts act (iii of 1873) - jurisdiction--suit for recovery of amount under rs. 2,500 and loss sustained by plaintiff--loss valued in the plaint at rs. 16,000. - .....to entertain the suit. we, therefore, set aside the decrees of the courts below and return the plant for presentation to the proper court. costs hitherto incurred will abide the.....

Judgment:

1. The other Kasi Pangu holders have not the same interest as the original plaintiff and should not have been made plaintiff under Section 30, Civil Procedure Code. The proper cause would have been to make them defendants, We set aside the order under Section 30, Civil Procedure Code. We also think that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The original plaintiff seeks to recover Rs. 1,232-15-10, and also prays that the defendant may be ordered to pay the loss sustained by her owing to their improper action. The loss as stated in paragraph' 17 of the plaint to be Rs. 16,000, and the original plaintiff offered to pay additional Court-fee, if necessary. The original plaintiff, therefore, sought to establish her right to more than Rs. 2,500 and the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and return the plant for presentation to the proper Court. Costs hitherto incurred will abide the result.